Subject: JP: Truth, reconciliation pose a
challenge for the government

February 21, 2005

Jakarta Post

Truth, reconciliation pose a challenge for the government

On Monday representatives of truth and reconciliation commissions from
several countries will convene to share their experiences with Indonesia,
that has only recently passed a law, long awaited, setting up such a
commission. The following is an excerpt from an interview with Ifdhal
Kasim, Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM),
who talked to The Jakarta Post's Muninggar Sri Saraswati.

Question: What is the purpose of the meeting of the Managers of Truth
Commission Affinity Group (MTC), which will be held next week in Jakarta?

Answer: This meeting will be attended by members of truth commissions
from several countries, such as Jorge Rolon Luna from Paraguay, Yasmin
Sooka from South Africa, Javier Ciurlizza from Peru, Marcie Mersky from
Guatemala, Father Matthew Kukah from Nigeria, Aniceto Gutteres Lopes from
East Timor, Howard Varney from Sierra Leone as well as Indonesian
officials, scholars and non-governmental organizations.

We hope it can provide a clear description on the work of truth
commissions in other countries as well as to seek comprehensive solutions
for gross violations of human rights cases around the world. We will also
discuss the East Timor-Indonesia Truth and Friendship Commission and
several important aspects involving truth commissions.

Could you explain the background of the establishment of the Commission
for Truth and Reconciliation here?

Law No. 27/2004 on the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation is
Indonesia's experimental response to a transitional political situation.
Such a commission is usually a product of countries in a transitional
period, from an authoritarian regime to a more democratic regime -- during
which governments usually face public demands to explain past gross
violations of human rights.

What is the importance of establishing such a commission?

Gross human rights violations that occurred during the period of an
authoritarian regime must be settled by the next regime, which applies a
democratic system. (If not) the cases will haunt the next regimes in
developing democracy and national unity.

The commission will play an important role in revealing the truth, and
offer substantive instead of political reconciliation, of rights
violations in the past. Both victims or their families, alleged
perpetrators and members of society in general, will find answers in their
quest for truth.

Some 40 percent of the country's citizens are victims of various gross
human rights violations, who have been seeking answers for years.

But why does the public seem indifferent to the issue of the
establishment of the commission?

First, the issue less popular than that of corruption, collusion and
nepotism (KKN) in the wake of reformasi. It was the issue of KKN that led
to the fall of the New Order.

Our political elite, who rose in the transitional period, also mainly
responded to this issue. Our president won the election by promising to
eradicate KKN.

Second, the government and the legislature were very sluggish in
drafting the law on the (truth) commission. Actually, the issue was
earlier a public debate involving scholars, activists, victims and alleged
perpetrators. But the authorities failed to respond to it quickly.

Third, the poor record of Indonesia's human rights tribunals had raised
skepticism for a just settlement for cases of gross human rights
violations.

Do you think the sluggishness in establishing the commission and the
corresponding law was intentional?

It seems the political elite was reluctant to establish the commission
quickly because one of its main tasks would be revealing the truth of
gross rights violation cases that occurred under the New Order. It
involved powerful people from the military, government and political
parties; those who now hold power in the government, the House of
Representatives and the Regional Representatives Council (DPD).

So do you think this government can meet the challenge of settling past
gross violations of human rights?

Yes, provided it is determined to uphold the state's dignity. They must
speed up the establishment of the commission by developing a conducive
political atmosphere. They could start by establishing a credible
committee to select commission members in a bid to set up a credible
commission.

Each stage of the process must be transparent to gain public support.
But then again, the government must understand that the commission's main
duty is to make substantive reconciliation rather than political
reconciliation.

We had high hopes when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for
reconciliation soon after he was elected president. Unfortunately, he was
referring to reconciliation with his political competitors.

Are you sure the credibility of members of the commission will
determine the credibility of the commission?

Obviously. If the commission consists of figures such as (Muhammadiyah
chairman) Syafi'i Ma'arif, (Nahdlatul Ulama cleric) Sahal Mahfudz,
(philosopher) Franz Magnis Suseno or (rights activist) Father Sandyawan or
other credible figures, I am sure the commission will get public support.
The opposite will happen if it consists of former officials of the New
Order.

What kind of cases would the commission handle first?

The commission will not handle cases (on an individual basis) because
its duties and authority are not the as that of the National Commission on
Human Rights (Komnas HAM). Its main task is to determine the general
pattern of gross rights violations and deciding whether it is a result of
the system or not. Members will decide to examine and probe several gross
rights violations that occurred for a certain period before seeking to
reveal the truth and set up a reconciliation process.

But the law says that if victims or their families refuse to pardon the
alleged perpetrators in a certain case, the commission will not grant
amnesty to the latter and hand over the case to the human rights tribunal.

That is a flaw along a number of others in the law. The government
should start making some revisions to the law because the commission
cannot work like Komnas HAM; otherwise there would be overlapping of
duties. Actually, the commission could use investigation results by Komnas
HAM in its examinations.

Do you think the commission can run well in Indonesia?

With regard to the law, I have two stances. First, I see an opportunity
for credible members to sit in the commission, that hopefully will bring a
good influence in terms of its performance and credibility.

Yet I also see that it may be extremely difficult for the commission to
accomplish its mission in revealing the truth and setting up substantive
reconciliation here because of several indications by the government's
moves in establishing the commission.

One indication is that the government is responsible to inform the
public about the law, but it has failed to do this. Second, the government
has not been transparent in establishing the commission.

Note: For those who would like to fax "the
powers that be" - CallCenter is a Native 32-bit Voice Telephony software
application integrated with fax and data communications... and it's free of charge!
Download from http://www.v3inc.com/